The One-Light Studio

Photography, as we all know, literally means 'drawing with light'. And working in the studio provides an enormous amount of control and flexibility with regard to lighting. But great results don't always require complicated techniques or a cartload of equipment. In this article, I'll walk you through a range of highly effective options when 'drawing' with just a single light source.

Keeping it simple

I learned one of my biggest lessons on a location shoot back when I was a photography student. The venue was a large classical music performance/recording space that had rather unique architectural features. And before the models arrived, I lit the set by first taking a Polaroid, seeing which parts of the room were dark, and then setting up lights to fill in those spots, repeating the process until the whole environment was evenly illuminated. My goal was to capture all the details of this interesting location.

When the first of the day's models arrived on set, I took another Polaroid and quickly realized that my lighting was a disaster! Everything was completely flat. Minor adjustments of my lights didn't help either, so I decided on a more drastic change: I turned off all of the lights that I'd painstakingly set up and started over from square one.

Beginning again, with a single lighting source helped me realize what I was missing; contrast and drama. In my desire to light the environment completely, I'd robbed the scene of all sense of dimension. By illuminating the scene with a single light, I immediately created dimensionality and contrast that had been sorely lacking in my test shots. Indeed, using a single light source in the studio can be an interesting and valuable exercise for any photographer. There's a visceral experience in watching how a scene changes as you move a single light axially around a subject.

On-axis light

We'll start with a single light plus beauty dish (a circular reflector) shot against a plain white background. Even with a very simple setup like this one, you can create different looks by simply changing the position of the light, as you'll see in the examples below.

Here's an example of front lighting. This style was often used to shoot Hollywood actors in the 1940's and 50's. It has regained popularity in some contemporary advertising photography.

The image above was shot using an on-axis light source - a light placed directly in front of the model, on the same axis as the camera. This is a very candid style, similar to what you would get with a ring flash or a simple on-camera flash. Over the last decade, this type of lighting has become popular in fashion advertisements, particularly those set in hotel rooms or other space-constrained locations. It flattens out contours, which is useful for hiding imperfections in the skin or overly-prominent features. Take note though; done poorly, images lit in this style can all too easily resemble snapshots or even worse, mugshots.

Here you can see the actual lighting setup used in the image shown above. When the light is positioned in directly front of and high above the model, it is sometimes called 'butterfly lighting', a reference to the shape of the shadow cast under the nose.

The beauty dish (partially shown here) is a wide circular reflector that provides light that is less harsh than direct flash, yet more directional than a softbox.

Off-axis light

In this next image, we've done nothing more than move the light approximately 15 to 20 degrees off-axis. Yet you can clearly see an increased sense of dimensionality and contrast. The lighting is not quite as flat. We are starting to pick up shadows in the model's nose and chin that were completely washed away in the on-axis lighting setup.

Here the light has been moved slightly (about 15-20 degrees) off-axis. Note the difference in depth and tone between this and the front-lit image shown previously.

It's really worth spending a few moments comparing the image above with the on-axis lighting example. Why? Because looking at photographs is a wonderful way to learn about lighting. Even without seeing the lighting setups I'm revealing in this article, you can deconstruct them from clues in the finished image. Ask yourself, 'How crisp or diffuse are the shadows?' 'What is the shape of the light(s) visible in reflections, such as the catchlight in the model's eye?'

A neatly circular catchlight, like the one visible in the image above, correctly suggests a beauty dish. A ring flash, by comparison would create a skinny doughnut-shaped catchlight. A softbox would produce a rectangle, while an umbrella would appear round with bright radial spines. The position of the catchlight and the direction in which the shadows fall also allow us to infer the placement and height of the lights.

This single light, off-axis setup is easy to achieve even without a large studio light. Using a wired, infrared or radio-controlled trigger from the PC sync or hot shoe of your camera lets you place small, portable flash units off-camera.

Comments

as others have mentioned, the setup of the lights in the article is good.. but it would be nice if the shots were taken in the same pose with just the light moved to different locations to show the difference.... much easier for the beginner to understand!

A good article to show that you do not need a lighting set but first you need to learn what can be done with one light. The immediate missing factor I feel is the explanation of keeping the lighting ratio within the capability of the film or sensor and here I think the use of soft lighting hides a multitude of sins :-)But perhaps styles have changed over the years and black holes are acceptable these days. Adding a simple reflector would probably satisfy my crit.

Though I am in agreement with the premise of seeing and creating with one light, I am not sure the images are the best examples of it. So sorry. Regardless, thanks for sharing and getting so many minds to contemplate the fundamentals. God knows we can all use it.

Great article. The author makes some very good and valid points. This doesn't just apply to photography but, to art in general. In my opinion, keeping it simple brings out more creativity. Also, this isn't an article for beginners only.

All 3 examples above are terrible. The first one - the shadows are not controlled at all, and form a bad pattern (lots of bumps on her dark side). The second - just washed out, and flat, no lighting work presented. The third - the main light is positioned too above and too aside - resulting in a larger nose than could be.

Yes, you can use just one key light, but then you have to be able to master a shadow pattern. If you can't - then stick with a large reflector and fill the shadows, just a touch, so it is not looking like black holes.

My favorite one-light setup is missing: put the light source behind the subject so that the camera is in the shade of the subject. Place a large white or metallic board near the camera 9preferably to one side) so it get illuminated by the lamp and reflects light towards the subject.

This set up does wonders with hair, and at the same time it is soft enough at the face so wrinkles etc. would not be too visible.

Quick question: what about other lights in the room? Is this shot in total darkness except for the primary light? Do the lights in the room even matter? The models shadow dissappears in all of the shots showing the setup (to make everything clear). Is this a change or how the whole scene actually looks during the shoot? Or did someone turn on other lights to capture the setup.

Working with flash is a different animal - the flash is so many orders of magnitude brighter than the ambient light that the light in the room almost doesn't make any difference at all. If you set your exposure for flash and took a picture with the flash turned off, your photo would be almost totally black.

The main reason to control the lighting in the room (for example, by using blackout curtains in my studio) is so that you can visualize what's going on with your lighting via the modeling lights.

Maybe not. If you use Nikons, they make accessory SG-3IR, which snaps onto your camera and triggers light-activated off camera flash units (InfraRed, line of sight only, cheap). Also, a long PC cord works in some cases. If your flash has a PC connection, PC cord light triggers are available that can be taped to your light stand in any position. If not, light triggers are available to fit under the flash unit shoe. Wireless is your more expensive option.

If I was teaching studio lighting technique, this is exactly where I would start. Although, I probably would have included at least one black and white image to help illustrate the simple drama of using a single light source.

Thank you for taking the time to put together this article. It is a good introduction to using a single light source to produce different lighting styles. I'll certainly be recommending that new photographers wanting to start doing portraiture read it.

Once you understand the light and shadow effects you can achieve with a single light source then you are well on your way to understanding all lighting. Only by understanding the light illuminates and shadows define can you master lighting. .

All lighting setups start with a single main or key light. Additional light sources are only used to modify that main or key light, i.e. to modify the light and shadows. Learning single lighting is the key to learning lighting in general.

Regarding fill light, I sometimes find it useful to set the key light to establish the overall look then *turn it off* and build up the lighting set starting from the weakest light and progressing back up to the key light.

Obviously, this isn't usually necessary if you're using two or three lights, but it can be a very handy approach for complex lighting scenarios with multiple environmental lights, hair and accent lights, fill, etc. It can sometimes be a little easier to visualize the contribution of the small / minor lights without the key lights when you are working with a truck full of gear on a complex lighting stage.

Beauty dishes are over rated.. They are best for close up work, head and shoulders with the dish placed close up, which is what they were designed for. They are much less suitable for full body shots.You can get just as good results or better using a simple brolly (dirt cheap) or softbox. I suggest the article is not about the equipment, but about the lighting techniques demonstrated. Overall, a good introduction for the beginner; it demonstrates what can be achieved with a simple setup. Now adding a large reflector to this which could be a simple piece of white card would add a whole range of additional lghting.

How disappointing. We normally associate this site with higher caliber work, even if the topic is single light source. These images are not interesting at all. I think having access to a studio, with a nice backdrop that you'd want to get more creative with your lighting. Budget has nothing to do with it, it's using your imagination, you are not shooting products for eBay. TERRIBLE.

Did you know, that one of the very Best and Highest paid photographers in N.Y. ONLY uses pure white backgrounds and almost always shoots this Beauty Wash look as it's sometimes called. Just some FYI........ lol Great article...

I don't think the point of the article was to charm readers with beautiful imagery. Actually, the illustrations brilliantly show different lighting styles and patterns you can create with a single light source.

By the way, one of the best books about lighting ('Light: Science and Magic') also features many 'flat' and 'boring' illustrations that are perfectly adequate for their intended purpose.

I think you are outnumbered here Maverick. This mini tutorial does the intended job: it teaches the basics of using a single light. It is not comprehensive; it's not intended to be. The images are good enough to illustrate the points made.

And as strata83 mentions the examples in one of the best books on lighting ever written uses quite boring and flat images.

I was surprised to see no mention of using a disc reflector to help fill in some shadows, but I guess then it's technically not a "one-light" kit, as the fill card is acting as a second light at super low power.

I recently purchased two powerful hot-shoe flashes, triggers, and stands/umbrellas, and have actually trying to make nice images with one before I add the second flash. But I definitely miss my mono-lights and really want that beauty dish the author has. Thanks for the article.

I think this is a great way to start out, a single flash/strobe/ light and a single model against a simple background. I practiced like this when i first got my flash, just trying different positions, angles, and methods of diffusion and modification. Then I tried adding in my reflector as a fill. Then I practiced using the flash outdoors as a fill light, and now I'm looking into picking up a second flash to use in the "studio" as a hair light.

Side lighting's fantastic - you could also bring in a white panel on the left to provide a bit of fill. One problem is that it's not very flattering unless the model has a lovely complexion or lashings of make-up (which is what they had in George Hurrell's day).

It's true that these are one-light shots. But some of them are one light plus reflector and it clearly helps to have a bevy of lights on hand from which to choose the one light to be used. It's not like you've only really got one light.

And the lamp in the last shot looks quite different from that in the first.

Plus, even if you used only one lamp w/o reflector (which does not appear to be the case), you clearly didn't start with a floor lamp from your living room. You had, no doubt, a wide choice to choose the one from that you actually ended up using. There is an implicit inconsistency in the simplicity of your title.

But nevertheless, I get your point. Once we go out and get the right set of lamps to choose from, we too can shoot with only one of them.

gollywop,The author never stated he was using a bare bulb. The article is about using a single light source. A beauty dish attached to a light is still 'one light'. And we have to assume that as a professional, some thought went into the equipment he's chosen to use. I've added in additional setup shots for the side lighting and 3/4 shots so you can see for yourself what he used.

One light is not one single beam light especially when something like a beauty dish is attached. As Larry mentioned, the dish size (and maybe its shape as well) plays a role here. A little on-camera flash just cannot match here.

I, personally, like shadows and depth to a photo. Of course, I pretty much always shoot with a single light, the sun, as the majority of my photographs are taken when I travel.

This studio lesson can also be applied to outdoor photography as you can liken the front lighting style to the sun being overhead and the angled lighting to early morning or late afternoon sunlight. Following this analogy a bit further, you can view clouds as a filter... (grin)

It´s great that professional photographers teach amateurs how to shoot. Then amateurs start taking pictures cheaply or pro bono and pros lose their jobs.Pros go to schools, four years photography there and then they buy expensive gear and use money to get clients. And then some of them teach amateurs in web which causes the profession to collapse, that has happened all over and photography is a dying profession.

If you think being a successful pro is about equipment and basic technique you are sorely mistaken. Two amateurs can have the same technique and equipment yet one can make wonderful images and the other be quite hopeless. One has an eye for design or expression and attitude. One has a feeling for light, the other doesn't see it. One understands composition dynamics the other... One is a photographer in demand, the other isn't.

At the higher end of the market, most 'professional photographers' have been letting assistants and second shooters do the bulk of their work for decades. "Professional photography" is unaffected by any of this. Most of those assistants also went to school. As it has always been, the people that get paid top dollar got into that position because they knew sombody.

That happens in a lot of professions. especially Graphic Design. A photographer now has to sell a style or look. Target marketing is key. Also, education should be free for all. Money should not be any reason for anyone to learn. Let information be free.

Huh? You think that the author of this piece, by showing us amateurs a little of his technique, is going to make us as good as he is? Absolutely not. He might make us better than we are, but we'll never be as good as he is.Pros are as good as they are not because of their equipment or their basic techniques (we amateurs can acquire those things) but because they work at it all day every day, and they have creative talent and vision. A client who thinks he or she can get pro results from a well-equipped amateur is going to be disappointed.

I am not a pro but I have roughly the same gear as a wedding photographer but I photograph birds and railway objects and old buildings and I know that I don't have the skill to do a wedding.I recently took photos of a friend's cat and it was brought home to me that the results were not very good and I know nothing about WB and lighting and I have been experimenting with a grey card.But I know not to give up my day job.

jorepuusa, you can go 10 years to schools if you like. When clients don't like your work, you won't get a single cent for it. Your work has just so much value, what somebody wants to pay for it. Photography schools don't change that.

There are countless books, magazine articles and internet articles available on photography. You would think that the world will be full of pro-grade photographers, but its not. Being a good and successful photographer typically requires a lot of dedication, practice, experience and creative vision. Articles like this cannot turn someone into a pro. They just show the path to those who are willing to put in the effort and have the vision. Said another way, if all a professional photographer knows can be conveyed through an article like this than I am afraid that "professional" photographer doesn't deserve to paid very high.

what a funny comment. ive trained many a tradesman in my time and have been very happy for them to succeed or even take over my job and made my job easyer" that is success ". i never liked people that never passed on their skills in fear of losing their job position.

The word Professional, only means that you are Proficient at something. I've seen photo works by UNTRAINED photographers, that not many ever come close to achieving. I also have seen the works of MANY so called Trained Professional Photographers, that are no better than what my 13 year old daughter can do. It's no different than any of the Art Professions. Training CAN help, but if you don't have the eye, NO amount of training will really help. And sometimes, all that is needed is a little help.Those that can, "DO". Those that can't, "COMPLAIN"... lol

I have to disagree with one point.The word Professional means you make a living at what you do. You have to admit that there are many people out there calling them self a pro that if they tried to shoot with the big boys would get a reality check.The market HAS changed. mom-a razzi , digital cameras and social media all seem to have lowered the expectations of the common man as to what is good photography.I am handly with a camera and have a good eye but still have tons to learn along the technical side. If it wasn't for articles like these I would have no way of learning. I work full time and there are no schools nearby. Even adult education classes seem to revolve around ' how to use your new camera' So it's internet learning or give up...Thanks to pros who give us these tips and articles.

I am a Finnish pressphotographer, whole trade, whole bisness has collapsed and amateurs and editors do most of the shooting, They shoot for free cause it´s cool or their fee is 10% of that what pros would take. That is mostly because other pros teach basics is web. So by teaching amateurs to take pictures You kill another photographers living in some part of the world. That is terrible and very stupid. But it cannot be helped, profession is going to die in a few years because people are greed and take for free anything they can and then use it for themselves only.Those who work in papers care only what everything costs not the quality of pictures and that is going to affect democracy also. Journalism should be watching the governments, how can it do it when pictures are cheap s..t.

The sense of entitlement in this post makes my head spin. There's no law of the universe that says that photography should be a mystic priesthood whose secrets are only given to the initiated. Photography may be a dying as a profession, but that's not a bad thing — just a new thing. If you want to make money from it, adapt or die. It's not "greed" that's forcing this. If anything, your idea that knowledge must be kept secret for the monetary benefit of a certain few elect is the greedy one.

You tell it greedy that I want to make living for my family for something I learned 35 years and You want to take it away for free? I would not give a s..t if amateurs learned what ever, the question is that as soon as they have learned something they start doing gigs for free. Got the point.Get all the info You want that´s ok, but give a little respect to those who teach You and at least ask for the same money when shooting gigs.Here in Finland a pro takes about 1500 use shooting a wedding, an amateur asks for 100 usd, does not pay taxes and does not give a s..t about quality. What if every profession went through the same. Doctors started to write how to make appendix disappear and amateurs started cutting people open for a few bucks. Well some died but so what...

What was funny? Was it funny when I tried to defense the rights of pro photographers? Or was something else funny? The funniest part are those who're not brave enough to use their names and write short and stupid comments which have nothing to say. That way we make the world a better place.

Jore, I'm a computer tech worker. I see that you're posting from a personal computer. Please send that back in, in order to protect my rights, because computers really only belong in the data center in the hands of knowledgeable people who have spent time and money learning how to run computers properly. The data center profession is time-honored but is dying a horrible death at the hands of amateurs. You doing that kind of information-technology stuff yourself impinges on our god-given right to make money from secret knowledge. So, please, think of everyone you are hurting and stay away from using computer technology. (It's okay if you don't respond to this — that way, I'll know you've done the right thing and turned your computer off. Thanks!)

To put that less sarcastically: your profession isn't dying because professionals are leaking the secrets. In fact, if you read camera-club journals from a hundred years ago, you'll find surprisingly identical content (and, humorously, often the same sort of complaint you have now). But it's not sharing that's killing professional photography. It's disruptive digital technology. Amateurs put more photographs on Facebook every month than professionals took in the entire 20th century *combined*. The world is changing, and your ability to extract rent from it as a gatekeeper to secrets is left behind. You'll need to be clever if you want to find a new way to make money from photography.

I am against sharing information so that those who get it for free start shooting for free or for minimum money. It does not help to be clever, in this country where I live ( Finland) there are only certain amount of jobs. Being clever does not help if gigs go for those who shoot them for free. Profession is really dying, Young pros cannot get jobs anymore cause those who have no morals steal their living by giving away shitty pics for free. Is that being clever, in my standard it`s not. The standard of visuals in pictures is going down cause there are no more pros to get it further.I am not the only one to think like this. Most of those who are pros and I know are really sad about those colleagues around who kill the profession by sharing detailed information. Some have already stopped it cause they get nothing of sharing, only more people demanding more and more. If it´s there, I have to have it --is the way young people think and are ready to steal what they can.

Oh, I don't doubt that the profession is dying. That happened to mainframe computer operators too. And certainly, the computing experience people get when doing their own systems maintenance is questionable — look at the botnets and viruses everywhere. That wouldn't happen if the operator's cabal was still in control. Likewise, there sure is a lot of terrible photography out there. But, if it weren't for the PC and the democratization of computing, there would be no internet as it stands today, and the massive growth and interconnectedness that has provided would have been stunted. It's the same with photography. Sorry you don't get to keep your sacred secret priesthood, but it was never really yours in the first place.

I made living as a photographer from 1972 to lets say 2008-2010 now it´s impossible by trying to maintain a high visual standard of pictures. You Matthew get what You do not pay for, lousy pictures but cheap--- good luck. I´m going to pension happily.

Great article. Thank you. So many don't consider a single light as studio lighting or try Strobist when a single monolight might be a better alternative so Kudos for this. This type of thing just helps people think about getting into a home studio situation or even carrying a single monolight with a battery pack on location.

So many think you have to start with three, four or five lights. I started with two and have over six now, but don't use them all very often. Many times I take only one and a reflector into the field.

Again, Thank you and Kudos to DPReview and Thomas Park for a great job.

I recently read that a light is best for movies and stills photographers should use a strobe.So does it come down to opinion and experience and that the choice is a situational thing?I imagine that you would have to take test photos with a strobe setup but lighting would be easier to visualise.

Thank you for taking the time and expense to craft this very informative article - Life is an ongoing learning process - Once you stop learning, you die. He who breathes life (learning) into others is truely gifted and appreciated.

Daryl, a monolight is a strobe and it doesn't matter for this kind of thing. For demo, he has to use continuous or a modeling lamp. Movies obviously can't use a strobe. Regardless the techniques are the same. Hot continuous lighting is often a pain for live models. Cool continuous is often not powerful enough.

Again, the techniques are the same. Most people use strobe type monolights or pack and head lights for studios. To learn more try www.paulcbuff.com

Hmm...I think there better one light demonstrations on the web. Specifically, Zack Arias has a good demonstration video of one light solutions. The photos here are overexposed and at times flat. There is a fine line between bleached photos and overexposed photos.

There's no way else to say it, but the photos are hideous. One light was used, big deal as it was used poorly. If the photog was trying to make the models look grotesque, then kudos -- I take it all back.